Topeka  Republican secretary of state candidate Kris Kobach not only helped write Arizona’s new immigration law, but he has been working for $300 per hour to train law enforcement officers there on procedures in arresting suspected illegal immigrants.

Kobach, an attorney, was hired as an immigration expert to help the Maricopa County sheriff’s office in immigration enforcement activities and policy. The contract, signed in October, calls for a minimum payment to Kobach of $1,500 per month, plus expenses and travel.

Reader poll

Does news that Kansas secretary of state candidate Kris Kobach helped write Arizona's new immigration law help or hurt his candidacy?

The new state law in Arizona, which Kobach helped put together, has been under fire from civil rights advocates, President Obama and even some Republican politicians.

The law says anyone police suspect of being in the country illegally must produce proof of being in the country lawfully or face arrest.

Critics say the law will result in people being targeted by law enforcement because of their skin color or language.

But Kobach says the criticism is off base and that the law prohibits racial profiling.

His contract with Maricopa County deals with training deputies under Sheriff Joe Arpaio on arrest procedures under federal immigration law. Arpaio, who is considering a run for governor, has been criticized by some for improper tactics in cracking down on illegal immigration.

Kobach’s help on the new state immigration law in Arizona was done for free, he said.

“I want these states to draft laws that will stand up in court,” he said.

He also has written local ordinances dealing with illegal immigration in Hazelton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas.

Kobach said he was asked to help out on the Arizona law by state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican from Mesa, Ariz.

Kobach described Pearce as a friend. Pearce has been a controversial figure in Arizona politics.

In 2006, Pearce sent an e-mail to supporters in which he copied an article from a white separatist group.

The article from the National Alliance’s website criticized the media for promoting multiculturalism, racial equality and presenting the Jewish Holocaust as fact. Pearce said he didn’t know the entire contents of the article and when he became aware of them he apologized and said they didn’t represent his views.

Of Pearce, Kobach said, “I know him as a person who has never said anything that indicated any kind of racial bias. He’s a very good man.”

Kobach is a former Kansas Republican Party chairman, and a law professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City. From 2001 to 2003, he served as the chief adviser on immigration law to then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Kobach is senior counsel for the Immigration Law Reform Institute, which describes itself as representing “citizens experiencing injury resulting from illegal immigration.”

Comments

Kolbach has turned his "I am just interested in this issue" into quite a one-man lucrative law industry.

He offer's little cities his pro-bono help, and then drags them into litigation that ends up costing those cities hundreds of thousands of dollars. Almost like the mafia, I would say. Read about one such instance here:

Kobach has shown how thrifty he is by getting a quarter-page prominent Op-Ed in the New York Times.

In his extensive biography he neglected to inform readers that he was the man who nearly bankrupted the Kansas Republican party, that he has outperformed Chicken Little in his hysterical warnings that Kansas Democrats are only elected thanks to the casting of ballots by thousands of dead people. It's Kathleen Sibelius' own zombie army.

Mainly he appears to have somehow forgotten to inform the Times that this KC-MO loser is running for Secretary of State, and he just took them for tens of thousands worth of costly space by getting them to run his Op-Ad.

Questions a little bit off the topic:
What exactly is the proof of citizenship a person must present to avoid arrest for suspicion of being illegally in the country? Will we all have to carry around our birth certificates to prove we are citizens? How many people even have a copy of their birth certificate let alone carry it with them? Would I have to sit in jail waiting for a copy of my birth certificate to be obtained?

Actually, waa, you are right on topic. Likely answers; No, unless your skin is brown and you speak Spanish. Good question, probably most have one but nobody carries it around. If you lose it it is a pain and hassle to get another. Yes, you would sit in jail until you could produce your birth certificate. Guilty until proven innocent due to an officer's "reasonable suspicion" whatever that may be. Nice, huh?

Does the law not specifically state that the police cannot stop someone and ask for immigration status? This article seems to indicate that officers can approach anyone in Arizona and ask for documentation, however that isn't what I've read. It says that law enforcement cannot ask about status without first stopping the person for some other violation and only can ask after their status may come into question. It is also my understanding that LEGAL immigrants are REQUIRED to carry a green card at ALL times and must produce it upon request, this is not a state law but federal, Section 264 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

I'm sure there are going to be questionable if not complete violations of this new law by law enforcement, just like there are now with almost any law, however if the law clearly states X, Y, Z and prohibits X, Y, Z then why aren't we talking about how to avoid issues with what is written in the law and not what isn't?

"Does the law not specifically state that the police cannot stop someone and ask for immigration status?"

No, it does not. The law states that in any "lawful contact" police can inquire about immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion that the individual is not a legal resident. The problem with that is that the US Supreme Court has recognized a category of "lawful contacts" known as "voluntary encounters". These often occur as "knock and talks" at known drug houses. They can happen on a public street. Police walk up to people and just start talking to them. They engage in these "voluntary encounters" in the hopes that they will develop reasonable suspicion to detain people or probable cause to arrest them. The courts claim that reasonable people would feel free to walk away from these "voluntary encounters", but the reality is not many people have the nerve to say, "No thanks, officer" when a cop asks to chat. There is nothing in the bill that would prohibit these kinds of "lawful contacts".

Thank God, for people like Kris who actually care about our borders, laws and constitution. I hope Kansas, Missouri and every other state follows Arizona's lead. As for these silly boycotts by LA and San Francisco leaders. Get real. Do they not realize that the majority of Americans support this and will boycott their "fine" cities because of their stupid actions?

Do you carry a driver's license when you operate a vehicle, tomatobrain? Have you ever noticed that when a police officer begins to investigate any altercation/situation the first thing they do is ask for identification? That's all that's happening here, tomatoseedbrain.

Hoooonk!! Thanks for playing, but you lose. Where's SCOTUS ruling on Hiibel? First you said SCOTUS ruled against the Hiibel decision, now you're saying thy upheld the Nevada SC ruling but continue to claim they RULED people aren't required to show proper ID, which, I'll say again, is complete crap. If no one is ever required to provide ID, how would the police operate? Clairvoyance?

The first two cases you cite: 1) have nothing to do with Hiibel and are merely red herrings
2) The first one deals with "reasonable suspicion", which apparently the officers lacked. But for our argument, reasonable suspicion has to be established for the query to hold water.
3) The second case was voided due to unclear language as to what ID need be provided, not that someone just has to come up with a name.

1 does not lead to 2 to lead to 3 to validate your argument. Quit obfuscating and prove your initial contention. I'm guessing you can't, so quit wasting my time with this crappage, if you please.

"Notice how it doesn't say the suspect has to provide documented proof such as a drivers license."

You do understand that the omission does not mean that ID is not required, right? Are you thinking that as long as a cop 'demands' legitimate names and addresses, as long as the suspect says something, anything, it's the cop's duty to accept his word on it????? What color is the sky in your deluded little world?

"See Police have these things called computers in the cars. They can run a persons name and address or social security number if you provide them with that."

Brilliant, Snidely. So all criminals really need to do is memorize someone else's name and address and as long as that comes up clean the cop's will just have to let 'em walk? What the hell do we need hard copy drivers licenses for then? To show off the picture to our friends?
What a maroon.

"They went on to say that the man was not required to give a drivers license or any other identification document, just his name"

NO, they did not. They said : "As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver’s license or any other document."

Sorry, vertigo, but that's merely a translation of the Nevada state statute, not a ruling by SCOTUS that a person need not offer ID. Understand the difference? In case you're confused or still obfuscating, here's the single most important piece of YOUR link that you "decided" to omit:

"Our decisions make clear that questions concerning a suspect’s identity are a routine and accepted part of many Terry stops. See United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229 (1985) (“[T]he ability to briefly stop [a suspect], ask questions, or CHECK IDENTIFICATION in the absence of probable cause promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice”);"

Hell, an officer can request ID even without probable cause, for cryin' out loud! Thanks so much for wasting my time.

"Notice how if a passenger is being questioned doesn't have an ID on them the officer doesn't arrest them for not having ID? "

Fantastic. More snideness, which in itself is amusing for being highly suspect, and then the meat of your retort is a non-sequitur??!! Once again, quit wasting my time.
And I gotta say, this late in the game you wanna bring in this supposed wealth of intimate law enforcement knowledge you have, and as support of such you cite 'Cops' as an example? Really, really weak, bro.

Driver's license doesn't cut it in AZ now. You MUST have your bith cert. They took a truck driver into custody (a USA citizen) at a weigh station in AZ because he only had his commercial drivers license. His wife had to come from CA with his b.c. to get him out of custody.

Gee, name calling? I guess you missed the story of the guy who had his commercial drivers license and SSN with him but still got arrested and jailed until he could provide his birth certificate. The wingers who claim, hey I'm not doing anything illegal, I don't have anything to worry about are just the ones who will scream the loudest when it's their door that gets kicked down.

Well, while I'm happy somebody's finally doing something, I certainly hope you're wrong about that. Providing proper documentation is one thing, but that incident was beyond excessive. It had to have something else intertwined with it (NAFTA, trucking laws, ?) The story was poorly supported, there has to be some kind of extenuating circumstance tied to it, at least I hope so.

Interesting reading. What I find interesting is that it doesn't require that you prove citizenship, only that you are lawfully here and in order to do that you only have to provide: A valid driver's license or a state ID, or tribal identification or a green card.

The law also prohibits law enforcement from using native language, skin color, race or national origina as a bases for asking for identification.

However, the bill stipulates that law enforcement can stop a vehicle if they suspect that the driver of the vehicle is violating human trafficking laws. So, theoretically, if there are more than 2 "hispanics" in a car, they could be pulled over. I guess those jokes about how many Mexicans can one fit in a car won't be such a big hit in Arizona anymore.

The bill also allows a person's immigration status to be used in any court proceeding even if there is no foundation for a person immigration status to be admitted.

The rest of the bill deals with sanctions against employers.

The official name of the bill is: Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act."

Good to know that "bedwetters" like you have no problem supporting candidates who claim to be working for free while getting paid 300 bucks an hour to do so. Con't you find a little inconsistency here. Seems to be a man willing to lie writing laws and running for public office. Forget his party affiliation, a liar is a liar.

Are you really that dense? Did you even read the article? In case you have trouble reading it clearly states he assited in writing the legislation for free. He is getting paid to assist them in training the officers on arrest procedures to comply with the federal immigration laws. Two completely different tasks. One free...one he is being paid for. Pay attention or shut up. Comments like yours only cloud the waters even further.

You just spun the biggest line of $hit. You are so naive to think Kobach distinguishes between the two. Are you so dense to think there really is a distintcion. Jokes on you. Sorry if I unclouded the waters for your poor naive eyes. Thats like saying "I charged you for the chocolate shake I made for free. Jeeeze............

You have to love that while the dabate rages on about the implication of this legislation people like woodsdolt latch on to one mundane non-issue and begin spouting off as if they've uncovered the hidden truth. Classic. "HE SAID IT WAS FREE AND IS GETTING PAID!?! LIAR!! lol...

You are arguing semantics but thats how you massage yourself so you can believe this guy is working for free. You get fed a line of crap and you you lock onto it so it doesn't cause you to think and you can worship your wacko candidate because you have the same racist views and don't like having that pointed out. Not that I care, but I'll give you a little reality to foul up your fantasy.

Koback has assisted in writing a very controversial and likely unconstitutional bill that will be tested in probably infinite court cases across the country. But not to worry, Kris baby to the rescue. He will represent you for 300 bucks an hour to test if his law is constitutional or not times infinite number of court cases and Kris baby has made a fortune of the law he wrote for free. I'm sure I went to fast for you on this, but just pay attention in the coming weeks and months and you can watch this happen.

Since krisy wrote the law, he is the best candidate to consult about the law, as in the sherif department of maricopa county Arizona. Not to worry, because Krissy will take of his "I'm working for free hat and put on his $300 an hour plus expenses hat and advise you on the bill he wrote for free as long as the checks keep on coming. I bet he would even sue you if you didn't pay him. Oh, I forget, nice Krissy wouldn't do anything like that because he would be willing to work for free just because he believes in the cause and he's a good guy.

Ok, now why should Krissy even state he wrote the law for free. Why not leave that out completely. Answer please. Kabach wanted it to appear (decieve) that his only motive to be involved in writing this law was just because he believes in the cause (while he was making a fortune off his investment writing the law), oh yeah,and make people like you believe he stood to make no money on the law. Works for you.

" Allows a person who is a legal resident of this state to bring an action in superior court to challenge officials and agencies of the state, counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions that adopt or implement a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law."

Which allows any individual to sue in civil court any police department or sheriff that they don't think is enforcing the law strongly enough. Sorry. It's dumb as hell.

if they are not enforcing the law to the fullest extent,then they are not doing their job.law enforcement officers were hired to enforce the laws as written,not as they see fit.if you hired someone to do a job and they wernt doing it ,wouldnt you take some kind of action?
I think this law should be used to sue the federal government for not enforcing the laws that have been on the books for years.Arizona is not the problem,the federal government is.put the blame where it belongs.

People that enter this country without going through the proper immigration channels break federal law. Laws are established to facilitate order in society. Those of you that call us "knuckle draggers", "right wing fascists", (I would challenge you to give me a definition of fascist) and any other name that you desire, were to be the victim of a crime, you would expect the law to be enforced. That is all that is happening here. Illegal immigrants are dragging the social welfare system of a lot of states down! Case in point; California!

fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race and stands for a centralized autocratic often militaristic goverment [Merriam-Webster Dictionary] --- i would assume a facist would be one who believes in or practices fascism...

He needs the work, leave him alone. After he fails to beat Chris Biggs for Secretary of State he'll be needing the cash. In fact, most Kansans would be happier if he just moved to the Nazi state of Arizona.

Why shouldn't the LJW run an article about a man who is lying to the people he wants votes from. Why do you bedwetters have such a problem with exposing this mans dishonesty. Why is it that you people just accept the man as a liar. Oh, I forget, your mission is more important than honesty. I am interested in knowing that a man who is getting paid $300 an hour to work for free writing laws is also a liar. wonder why I wouldn't think the laws he writes might be skewed a little since he is a liar. Why would I want this guy as sec. state, how many more dishonest things is he going to do. Do you have to wear some kind of special glasses or something to be able to tell if he is telling the truth? Or is the test like it was with bush, if his lips are moving, he's lying

ever hear of FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
they printed your bs didnt they?
nugget,bruno2,consumer1,if people dont agree with you that makes them nazis and raceists.hmmm,sounds like profiling to me.whos the nazi here?we dont agree.WE MUST BE NAZI.

I am very happy for Mr. Kobach. Arizona is an ideal place for him to take up residency. The more time he spends there training law enforcement in the ways of maintaining a police state, the less time he has to campaign in Kansas spreading his poison.

Or, might it be that you just confuse "truth" as being liberal because its such a foreign concept to the right wingers. (Have you already forgot Kobach is lying in this article?) The liberal bias media is a myth manufactured by the right wingers so they can sell their lies. The media was as George Bush biased as it could get selling his lies about that illegal war he got us into.

Cow flop. Did you miss the LJW story during the health care debate that claimed "Hundreds rally for state's rights" and then stated in the first sentence, "about a hundred demonstrators". The bias of LJW, when evident, is to the right, read the weekly Saturday column.

Jeeze. $300 an hour to figure out how to run people who make a few dollars an hour back over an imaginary line. For that much $$ they could have hired 30 unemployed folks to do something productive. But then inequity is the basis of this entire issue.

Just another Kansan seeking employment out-of-state, what's wrong with that? Don't agree with his politics but a man's got a right to keep gas in the Escalade and put food on the china for his family. Besides his day job is at UMKC...wait...this guy ever work in Kansas? What's he doing running for office in Kansas?

I carry an ID with me at all times and would be able to show any law enforcement if I was asked to produce one. I don't understand why this is such a bad thing. If someone is legal, they shouldn't have a problem with this law.

Your ID wouldn't cut it if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" (like maybe he doesn't like what you are wearing). They'd lock you up until you produced a birth certificate. Again, the folks who say, "I'm not doing anything illegal, why should I care" will start screaming when it's their door that gets kicked in. Enjoy.

If the police,border patrol, immigration control enforcement or any other agency kicked doors down without a search warrant legal trouble would follow with justification. Doors can however be kicked down by drug cartels which then is followed by spraying your family with bullets in which the cartel may have targeted the wrong house. Enjoy.

Step 1 - Proper uniform includes cap, blouse, breeches, insignia, leather belt , boots and armband. Cap is peaked. Blouse and breeches are brown. Cross belt and waist belt are black. Cross belt is worn from right shoulder to left hip. Arm band is worn on left bicep. Boots are black and knee high.

At least we have someone (Kobach) in Kansas that is worried about this state problems with illegals and is not pandering to the left wing communist quislings and political correct anti-america groups.

These open border people maybe wants all the illegals to come to Kansas and bring their criminal element, drug dealers, smugglers, gangs and murderers with them. Let them rob you, kill your families and rape your daughters and fill your children full of drugs.. Would you be happy, then?

He has my vote. Lets get a similar law passed in Kansas
.
We need to control the problems of illegals, nation wide.
There is no schadenfreude in this for the average American citizen. They just want their laws obeyed and enforced. And not let the local authorities pick and choose which laws they will enforce. Many police chiefs are catering to the illegal groups, and do nothing. There is no revenue in it for them, like photo radar and speed traps.

The illegal do not respect our laws, not obey them. We need to adopt Mexico's laws on how to deal with illegals, they would put a stop to it within a few months.

You may want to familiarize yourself on how Mexico handles their illegals. Second offense is ten years in prison. First offense is a felony. Our government has coddle the illegals and created this problem.

Now is time for all illegals to leave this country and apply the legal way.

I get so sick of Obama, and all the others including some Republicans.
they are all willing to sell this whole issue down the river because they are pandering to the hispanic vote.
This is the problem with this country and poloticians in a nut shell.
They don't care about the rule of law, or our countries integrity so long as they get the vote.
Disgusting.
They should all be voted out at the next election. Repubs. Dems, and the communist Obama especially.

I get so sick of Obama, and all the others including some Republicans.
they are all willing to sell this whole issue down the river because they are pandering to the hispanic vote.
This is the problem with this country and poloticians in a nut shell.
They don't care about the rule of law, or our countries integrity so long as they get the vote.
Disgusting.
They should all be voted out at the next election. Repubs. Dems, and the communist Obama especially.